1st crowdfunder | Page 25 | Vital Football

1st crowdfunder

jocklatic said:
Political & fence sitting answer I'll have you know kind sir....😉
You taught me well.......
Click to expand...
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/ was used to run the survey and it'd be a quick export. When does it get to the stage that they release the figures and they aren't believed because its taken so long to get them that people then wanna see dates of votes?

I understand why the questions I asked are taking so long, this one I dont get.
 
Wlatic said:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/ was used to run the survey and it'd be a quick export. When does it get to the stage that they release the figures and they aren't believed because its taken so long to get them that people then wanna see dates of votes?

I understand why the questions I asked are taking so long, this one I dont get.
Click to expand...
Agree. Probably the reply might be... - due to the pandemic your queries will take longer than usual.... 😉😂
 
There were 545 votes spread across the 5 options.
There were 62 suggestions: including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing) and Community Trust areas (which is where the money will be going).
There were several suggested local initiatives/charities which the Supporters Club will look to donate to over the coming years.
 
WiganSLO said:
There were 545 votes spread across the 5 options.
There were 62 suggestions: including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing) and Community Trust areas (which is where the money will be going).
There were several suggested local initiatives/charities which the Supporters Club will look to donate to over the coming years.
Click to expand...
That is more than I expected there to have been to be honest, and I suppose that amount gives a fair cross section of donators.
Hopefully it can now be put to bed and we can get on with supporting this great club of ours.
 
WiganSLO said:
There were 545 votes spread across the 5 options.
There were 62 suggestions: including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing) and Community Trust areas (which is where the money will be going).
There were several suggested local initiatives/charities which the Supporters Club will look to donate to over the coming years.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for getting back to us on the subject.
Seems reasonable for the path that the SC chose to take and please take this as feedback and not a criticism the levels of communication thru out this period could be improved.
 
WiganSLO said:
There were 545 votes spread across the 5 options.
There were 62 suggestions: including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing) and Community Trust areas (which is where the money will be going).
There were several suggested local initiatives/charities which the Supporters Club will look to donate to over the coming years.
Click to expand...

So how many actually voted? Given you could vote for all 5 it doesn’t mean there were 545 separate voters, there could have been just 109 for all we know. Which is a very low number to justify donating it all to one organisation.

As for the options, I suggested none that fell into those categories, so it seems to me lip service was made to any alternate proposals.

What’s done is done, though given the obfuscation and the battle to obtain transparency the whole process still stinks.
 
WiganSLO said:
There were 545 votes spread across the 5 options.
There were 62 suggestions: including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing) and Community Trust areas (which is where the money will be going).
There were several suggested local initiatives/charities which the Supporters Club will look to donate to over the coming years.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply.
I agree with MIW's post - please advise number of actual voters.
And per LS we do appreciate good & regular communication - after all the SC is the club for WAFC supporters.
 
So I guess those applauding this long time coming partial response will also be supporting Boris's latest manoeuvres ?
Easily pleased / compliant or what some folk 🙈
As Jim Bowen used to say "it'll take a minute to count up"
It's taken almost a month to get to this level of transparency- by my calculations that means the real answers (and I note the timings of appointment of the potentially conflicted individual has been ducked as well) again reasonably and courteously asked by NZog and MiW may land with us just ahead if 14th August when I am hoping the key WASC members will be in the South stand bar as face to face questions will be asked.
And yes - I am a member 😁 though unlikely to be so going forwards
 
Hampton said:
So I guess those applauding this long time coming partial response will also be supporting Boris's latest manoeuvres ?
Easily pleased / compliant or what some folk 🙈
As Jim Bowen used to say "it'll take a minute to count up"
It's taken almost a month to get to this level of transparency- by my calculations that means the real answers (and I note the timings of appointment of the potentially conflicted individual has been ducked as well) again reasonably and courteously asked by NZog and MiW may land with us just ahead if 14th August when I am hoping the key WASC members will be in the South stand bar as face to face questions will be asked.
And yes - I am a member 😁 though unlikely to be so going forwards
Click to expand...
I definitely wouldn't be renewing my membership. I will not subscribe to a consistently non-transparent club.
 
N"Zogbia's fan club said:
I definitely wouldn't be renewing my membership. I will not subscribe to a consistently non-transparent club.
Click to expand...

3877 people donated via Crowdfunder.co.uk
It means if around 250 people voted in the poll that'd bring it to around 5-6%


https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/laticsredonate
12 people redonated a total of 1,115 out of the 5390 (0.2%) who donated 642,559 (0.2%)

Generally when I see replies like " including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing)" you know the wrong question was asked. They may not have wanted anything, but may have been ok with WASC honouring donations doing XYZ within the stadium.
 
Made in Wigan said:
So how many actually voted? Given you could vote for all 5 it doesn’t mean there were 545 separate voters, there could have been just 109 for all we know. Which is a very low number to justify donating it all to one organisation.

As for the options, I suggested none that fell into those categories, so it seems to me lip service was made to any alternate proposals.

What’s done is done, though given the obfuscation and the battle to obtain transparency the whole process still stinks.
Click to expand...

It was stated the money left over would go to Stadium, Club and CT. As the club didn't want the money for the first 2 that left CT.
WASC Didn't need to do the survey, but wanted to see which of the CT ideas resonated best with the fans and asked for more ideas. There were 209 who bothered to vote.


Wlatic said:
3877 people donated via Crowdfunder.co.uk
It means if around 250 people voted in the poll that'd bring it to around 5-6%


https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/laticsredonate
12 people redonated a total of 1,115 out of the 5390 (0.2%) who donated 642,559 (0.2%)

Generally when I see replies like " including club improvement (which the club have said they wanted nothing), Stadium improvement (club said they wanted nothing)" you know the wrong question was asked. They may not have wanted anything, but may have been ok with WASC honouring donations doing XYZ within the stadium.
Click to expand...

I am not too sure why you can't get your head around the Club saying they didn't want the money for anything. Did you expect WASC to just give them the money anyway and say "do what you want with it"? That way you would be on here slaughtering them for giving the club money so that the premier lounges had new tablecloths and an ipad for the receptionist.

Nearly 4,000 people generously donated to a crowdfunder that clearly stated it was not refundable, to help keep Wigan Athletic stay in the football league. With the money donated WASC was able to pay the invoices that kept the training ground running and equipped, it kept stadium staffed, equipped and running so we could play home games, it paid for the hotels, travel and associated costs for the away games and ultimately it therefore ensured they met that target and we had a club in existence that could actually be bought.
Less than 0.5% of that nearly 4,000 seem to have an issue with WASC doing exactly what they said they would do.
If there are no NEW questions, please let's get on with supporting the team we have all worked so hard to keep alive over the past 12 months. (@moonay if I've not replied in a couple of days please let me know)
 
WiganSLO said:
It was stated the money left over would go to Stadium, Club and CT. As the club didn't want the money for the first 2 that left CT.
WASC Didn't need to do the survey, but wanted to see which of the CT ideas resonated best with the fans and asked for more ideas. There were 209 who bothered to vote.




I am not too sure why you can't get your head around the Club saying they didn't want the money for anything. Did you expect WASC to just give them the money anyway and say "do what you want with it"? That way you would be on here slaughtering them for giving the club money so that the premier lounges had new tablecloths and an ipad for the receptionist.

Nearly 4,000 people generously donated to a crowdfunder that clearly stated it was not refundable, to help keep Wigan Athletic stay in the football league. With the money donated WASC was able to pay the invoices that kept the training ground running and equipped, it kept stadium staffed, equipped and running so we could play home games, it paid for the hotels, travel and associated costs for the away games and ultimately it therefore ensured they met that target and we had a club in existence that could actually be bought.
Less than 0.5% of that nearly 4,000 seem to have an issue with WASC doing exactly what they said they would do.
If there are no NEW questions, please let's get on with supporting the team we have all worked so hard to keep alive over the past 12 months. (@moonay if I've not replied in a couple of days please let me know)
Click to expand...

But that isn't what happened based on legal documents from the administration. Maybe I missed the part where WASC crowdfunder.co.uk said they were going to soft-loan money and have it sit in a bank account (reference https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00270043/filing-history -> 20 Jan 2021 Administrator's progress report -> Page 10 -> Header Expenditure

The new owners seem to want to engage with the fans and if actual good suggestions were put forward to them (I've seen a few great one's on the forum that wouldn't have costed much and made a great impact). Strange how you've quoted 0.5% of people have an issue with how you've handled funds and 99.8% of people didn't redonate their funds (including myself) for the 2nd fundraiser.

If this is Jason its kind of funny how hard lined you're being here, certainly wasn't the same when the chairman was CC'ed, zero questions answered since July 10th.
 
Last edited:
WiganSLO said:
It was stated the money left over would go to Stadium, Club and CT. As the club didn't want the money for the first 2 that left CT.
WASC Didn't need to do the survey, but wanted to see which of the CT ideas resonated best with the fans and asked for more ideas. There were 209 who bothered to vote.




I am not too sure why you can't get your head around the Club saying they didn't want the money for anything. Did you expect WASC to just give them the money anyway and say "do what you want with it"? That way you would be on here slaughtering them for giving the club money so that the premier lounges had new tablecloths and an ipad for the receptionist.

Nearly 4,000 people generously donated to a crowdfunder that clearly stated it was not refundable, to help keep Wigan Athletic stay in the football league. With the money donated WASC was able to pay the invoices that kept the training ground running and equipped, it kept stadium staffed, equipped and running so we could play home games, it paid for the hotels, travel and associated costs for the away games and ultimately it therefore ensured they met that target and we had a club in existence that could actually be bought.
Less than 0.5% of that nearly 4,000 seem to have an issue with WASC doing exactly what they said they would do.
If there are no NEW questions, please let's get on with supporting the team we have all worked so hard to keep alive over the past 12 months. (@moonay if I've not replied in a couple of days please let me know)
Click to expand...
The low voting numbers could be due to the fact that the donors were not aware of the voting.
You haven't yet answered as to whether the SC has access to email addresses of the direct donors.
I'm sure the SC does and if they had emailed them (GDPR is not affected as the SC will only be writing to thank them and also ask for their vote participation) I'm sure the response would be much higher as you're connecting to an engaged audience.
Concerning money offered to the new owners - new ipad etc is laughable. Has the SC thought about fans engagement eg activities pre 1st home game, larger banners etc to make the stadium less sterile and have a more football feel (as opposed to Rugby).
 
WiganSLO said:
It was stated the money left over would go to Stadium, Club and CT. As the club didn't want the money for the first 2 that left CT.
WASC Didn't need to do the survey, but wanted to see which of the CT ideas resonated best with the fans and asked for more ideas. There were 209 who bothered to vote.




I am not too sure why you can't get your head around the Club saying they didn't want the money for anything. Did you expect WASC to just give them the money anyway and say "do what you want with it"? That way you would be on here slaughtering them for giving the club money so that the premier lounges had new tablecloths and an ipad for the receptionist.

Nearly 4,000 people generously donated to a crowdfunder that clearly stated it was not refundable, to help keep Wigan Athletic stay in the football league. With the money donated WASC was able to pay the invoices that kept the training ground running and equipped, it kept stadium staffed, equipped and running so we could play home games, it paid for the hotels, travel and associated costs for the away games and ultimately it therefore ensured they met that target and we had a club in existence that could actually be bought.
Less than 0.5% of that nearly 4,000 seem to have an issue with WASC doing exactly what they said they would do.
If there are no NEW questions, please let's get on with supporting the team we have all worked so hard to keep alive over the past 12 months. (@moonay if I've not replied in a couple of days please let me know)
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for your reply. It does raise some questions though.

Firstly why was the turn out so low?

You say that only 209 "bothered" to vote. Why was this?
How much effort was put in by the club to bring out the vote. Was simply placing a statement on the WASC website enough. Should they have contacted the local press and media to inform those that do not use the website. Could an e.mail to membership have been a better option.

Secondly, you say that less than 0.5% ( 20) of the nearly 4000 seem to have an issue.

How do you know that?

The majority on this forum seem to have an issue. Perhaps many are not aware of the issues as they have never been contacted!

There is also the point that although you say that less than 0.5% have an issue, you seem content that less than 5% (209) who were eligible to vote did so.

If you do the maths that equates to 10% of those that voted. So a higher percentage have an issue than those that voted in support.

I am sorry to say that I think the whole process has been flawed and insufficient though given to the process of contacting eligible voters.

In your other post you allude to the fact that the money was non refundable and that technically the SC did not have a requirement to ask the donors what to do with it. If that is the case, and I am certain it is, why ask for alternate suggestions in the first place.

In fact why hold a poll?

Is it not therefore incumbent upon the organiser to ensure that a fair and open poll is organised and that sufficient time and effort is given to contact those that are eligible to vote and not just expect people to read a statement from the organiser on their website. Is it not also common sense to see that such a low turnout has occurred and realise that perhaps the poll has not been publicised enough, void the result and try to rectify the low turnout to achieve a more representative vote.

Once again thank you for your response however like others on here I feel that this has left a sour taste in the mouth and will vote with my feet and not renew my membership as I have lost faith in the SC and those that run it.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Thanks very much for your reply. It does raise some questions though.

Firstly why was the turn out so low?

You say that only 209 "bothered" to vote. Why was this?
How much effort was put in by the club to bring out the vote. Was simply placing a statement on the WASC website enough. Should they have contacted the local press and media to inform those that do not use the website. Could an e.mail to membership have been a better option.

Secondly, you say that less than 0.5% ( 20) of the nearly 4000 seem to have an issue.

How do you know that?

The majority on this forum seem to have an issue. Perhaps many are not aware of the issues as they have never been contacted!

There is also the point that although you say that less than 0.5% have an issue, you seem content that less than 5% (209) who were eligible to vote did so.

If you do the maths that equates to 10% of those that voted. So a higher percentage have an issue than those that voted in support.

I am sorry to say that I think the whole process has been flawed and insufficient though given to the process of contacting eligible voters.

In your other post you allude to the fact that the money was non refundable and that technically the SC did not have a requirement to ask the donors what to do with it. If that is the case, and I am certain it is, why ask for alternate suggestions in the first place.

In fact why hold a poll?

Is it not therefore incumbent upon the organiser to ensure that a fair and open poll is organised and that sufficient time and effort is given to contact those that are eligible to vote and not just expect people to read a statement from the organiser on their website. Is it not also common sense to see that such a low turnout has occurred and realise that perhaps the poll has not been publicised enough, void the result and try to rectify the low turnout to achieve a more representative vote.

Once again thank you for your response however like others on here I feel that this has left a sour taste in the mouth and will vote with my feet and not renew my membership as I have lost faith in the SC and those that run it.
Click to expand...

You could always step in, take their place and no doubt everything will be pretty much perfect from then on. Maybe WLatic, MIW and N'Zogbia's fan club will join you and make the whole organisation flawless. But I suspect you're all happier sitting on the outside and throwing stones at those on the inside.
 
"The majority on this forum seem to have an issue. Perhaps many are not aware of the issues as they have never been contacted!"

Are you sure about this? It just seems to be a few repeat offenders. To me the majority admit that the process hasn't been without fault, but that a few volunteers who set out to save their club despite having no previous experience, picked up a stick that only had a shitty end, did their best and only ever had the best of intentions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.